Replies

II. Discussion
Rule 26(c)(1) authorizes the Court to enter a protective order to protect a party
“from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including an
order forbidding the discovery or specifying terms for discovery. “While the court should
not automatically stay discovery because a motion to dismiss has been filed, ‘a stay is
proper where the likelihood that such motion may result in a narrowing or an outright
elimination of discovery outweighs the likely harm to be produced by the delay.’” 19th
St. Baptist Church v. St. Peters Episcopal Church, 190 F.R.D. 345, 349 (E.D. Pa. 2000),
quoting Weisman v. Mediq, Inc., 1955 WL 273678, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5900 *2 (E.D.
Pa. 1995). “Where a pending motion to dismiss may dispose of the entire action and
where discovery is not needed to rule on such motion, the balance generally favors
granting a motion to stay.” Weisman, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *5.

The above is found in Obama’s response in one of the lawsuits demanding documents.

All Court filings from Berg and Obama can be found at this website:

http://www.obamacrimes.info/

II. Discussion Rule 26(c)(1) authorizes the Court to enter a protective order to protect a party “from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including an order forbidding the discovery or specifying terms for discovery.

I do not read from this that Obama through his filings claims to be trying to avoid embarrassment. It could be one or more of the things listed, but not necessarily all of them at once (IANAL).

Thank you for the context. Obama never said it. Some lawyer did as part of a legal argument while representing Obama. That’s very different from Obama saying it. If facts aren’t kept straight this thing is going nowhere.

I’m not defending Obama. If he is not a Natural Born Citizen I want his butt out of office. I have seen no evidence that he is not, THAT’S the problem we all have.

We need a mole in Hawaii that can get that birth certificate.